Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Thread] [Warfare-Turn Timer Issue Discussion]

[MMC]

Harsher punishments do prevent a majority of crimes, but they do not prevent all.

There is always going to be a few who ignore the rules for whatever reason, and even some who forget and simply make mistakes.

The objective it to not make the punishment so harsh as to turn a free-yet-secure environment into a police state.

The one thing that comes up in every law court in the western world, is the concept that the punishment should always fit the crime.

In real life, if you commit a crime, no matter how small, it cannot be completely undone. Therefore harsh punishments can be used (however rightly or wrongly) to prevent or punish, even a small mistake.

In a game, where the emphasis is on FUN, and the game can be reset to undo a mistake (or to undo something worse), we do not need to be so harsh. When someone decides to be malicious, then we can take action (a la BlackDragon), but try to remember that no-one is infallible, and that people WILL make mistakes.

Instead of arguing over punishments and whether or not a given rule is enforcible, we should be looking to how we can self-regulate the game. Instead of saying "You did wrong, you'll be punished" to each other, we should be saying "Are you sure you want to do that? It might be seen as breaking a rule" to each other.

On a closing note, I feel I should mention something found in other games. Specifically table-top role-play games. In every single DnD (or D20) style book I've seen, they open with a phrase akin to:
"These rules are presented as guidelines. Whilst it is recommended that they be followed, your individual GM may overrule any aspect, and his or her decision is final."
In other words, whilst rules can be used to provide structure and something to measure player by, when they start encroaching on the FUN-ness of a game, there should be some ability to cast them aside, and play on without them. In this capacity, I am happy to let Cyber make a final ruling concerning each individual case, or if people consider the possibility of Conflict of Interest, then I'm sure Solver or Snoopy, or Grampa Troll, would be willing to take just a few minutes to make a decision for us.

Now, instead of arguing, why don't we just get on with the game, and deal with problems as they arise? This is surely less traumatic than trying to conceive every possible problem in advance.

[Pinchak]

I don't care what the rule is regarding this, as long as two things happen...

1. The rule is clearly spelled out somewhere. No subjective interpretations of the rule.

2. The punishment is clearly spelled out. I don't care how minor or severe it is, but it should be spelled out.


No offense MMC, but all this talk of "making up rules as we go along" and "deciding punishments on a case by case basis" is so problematic I don't even know where to begin.

I would much rather have no rule at all, or over the top regulation, before I would want this case by case deal. At least I know with the other options what I am getting.

Cyber, I checked on the first post of this thread and I don't see anything about a double move rule. Can you please add it there for reference? My understanding is that we are still using the current rule, whatever that is.

[Pitboss Korea]

He's said he's done discussing it, so I don't know that he is going to see your post Pinchak. Which is precisely why he is a poor candidate to be the "GM" (General Manager?) of this game, at least for the purposes of enforcing the rule. And yes, a see what happens approach is the WORST approach for this game. Especially when you only have like five people discussing it and the ones who don't want to do anything use the "nobody else is talking about it so nothing will happen approach." Which is very funny because they use the exact same logic to go ahead with what they want to do, as Ras explained we get four people agree on something and as long as nobody else talks about it Cybershy considers that enough to go through with it.

Its honestly amusing sometimes. I don't think my ideas were harsh. I think as long as everyone is CLEAR on the rule nobody will break it. Its not like we get everyone rushing to play their turn in the first 33% of the timer anyway, and as long as it is announced here, in the Org thread, in the OOC thread AND in the story thread, plus e-mails and PMs are sent out there is really no excuse. It just ensures that nobody cheats, nobody GETS CHEATED (which is more important than nobody cheating, if that makes sense), and that nobody FEELS CHEATED so we don't have to worry about replacing them. That's all I'm asking for, nobody is going to break this rule, I am pretty sure of that. But to make sure it doesn't happen lets just make a penalty that will make the person think twice about it. The point of cheating in the first place is to try and win or to get an unfair advantage, if the penalty for doing so outweighs the advantage they won't do it. And as I've said, there's no chance you won't get caught, the website keeps track of when the player moved.

The only objection to the penalties so far are "well the death penalty doesn't prevent murder" (which is ironic that they use that against me as I agree with that and am actually against capital punishment) and the second is "we don't want to punish people for making mistakes." My arguments against those points are that (a) this is not murder, this is civilization and there is no comparison between cheating in a videogame and murdering another human being and then (b) we have so many methods of contacting people, and I know someone even has the list of who everyone is in the first place, its is impossible that you wouldn't receive the message and if you fail to receive it and managed to go this long without hearing about this issue in this game it means you aren't paying attention at all.

Frankly there are NO good reasons not to implement these penalties, and every good reason to do it.

[MMC]

I never suggested making up the rules as we go along. I simply said that we shouldn't be so rigid as to say "You should have waited another 5 minutes. You will now lose all your votes" or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, having a set of guidelines is a good thing, but in a GAME, one should never treat them as laws.

Setting the rules and a list of possible punishments is fine, but which punishment is applied, if at all, should be decided indiviually. The main effort for players, should not be concerned with what the punishments are, but with helping each other make the game FUN and pointing out mistakes to enable players to learn from them.

I'm fed up of this discussion, and I'm perfectly happy to accept the 33% rule as a guideline. If a someone can make a list of about 2-3 possible punishments, using common sense, we can then apply those to any situation where they would be appropriate.

Like Cyber, I'm not going to argue in this thread anymore, but I'll still read it to see if people like Capo can understand that the primary aim of a game is to provide a source of fun, not punishment.

PS. GM = Game Master

[Pitboss Korea]

I understand a game is for fun, and I am not takling about doling out punishments randomly for no reason.

I am talking about punishing cheaters. Why is nobody looking at the position of the person who has to deal with the cheater? Why are we worried about defending the cheater so much? Don't cheat and it won't be a problem.

[Pitboss Korea]

BTW; I just posted and saw one of those little quotes Apolyton shows. It says "Q: What do you say to a Puerto Rican in a three piece suit? A: Will the defendant please rise."

What ****ing moron thought that was funny? I suggest someone do something about that, its unnecessarily insensitive and its completely in poor taste.

[Robert]

He's said he's done discussing it, so I don't know that he is going to see your post Pinchak. Which is precisely why he is a poor candidate to be the "GM" (General Manager?)

I read it

First drawing a self-made image of someone and then base your conclusion on that self-made image.....

Regarding your Puerto Rican quote: post it in the "Site feedback & news" forum (top-forum in apolyton on apolyton.net/forums)

[Pitboss Vikings]

Originally posted by Pitboss Korea
BTW; I just posted and saw one of those little quotes Apolyton shows. It says "Q: What do you say to a Puerto Rican in a three piece suit? A: Will the defendant please rise."

What ****ing moron thought that was funny? I suggest someone do something about that, its unnecessarily insensitive and its completely in poor taste.

only insensitive to Puert o ricans

Politcial correctness i guess hasnt hit poly yet.

[The Capo]

Yeah but Ras, you could EASILY repalce the word Puerto Rican in that statement with another group and to a certain other group it would be considered funny or true. Its a hurtful joke and its just stupid to begin with.

[The Capo]

Originally posted by CyberShy

He's said he's done discussing it, so I don't know that he is going to see your post Pinchak. Which is precisely why he is a poor candidate to be the "GM" (General Manager?)

I read it

First drawing a self-made image of someone and then base your conclusion on that self-made image.....

Regarding your Puerto Rican quote: post it in the "Site feedback & news" forum (top-forum in apolyton on apolyton.net/forums)

How in the world is this a self made image? You said you were done discussing it, so I said "I DON'T KNOW that he is going to see your post." ****, relax man. That was a logical conclusion, so it was not self-made you certainly helped by saying you weren't going to discuss it. Further I said you would be a poor candidate for the GM position because YOU by YOURSELF with THAT ATTITUDE (i.e. I'm done discussing it) does make a bad Game Manager. You should always be open, yourself, to talking to players about their concerns. The simple fact that you responded the way you did, in my mind, backs up my assertation. I don't think you have the objective attitude that someone who would be singularly responsible for making decisions should have. So I stick by what I said, if we have one person who is going to make decisions I do not want it to be you. I am not saying it should be me, but I don't want it to be you.

[Robert]

Stop discussing it isn't the same as stop reading it.
I obviously read anything you guys write about this game.

Further I said you would be a poor candidate for the GM position because YOU by YOURSELF with THAT ATTITUDE (i.e. I'm done discussing it) does make a bad Game Manager.

I wouldn't say that I'm the game manager, to begin with.
But a good manager knows when a debate must be ended. If there's a reason that I would be a bad manager then it's because I've continued way too long, not because I've stopped participating.

We're in an argument-loop already for weeks.

[The Capo]

This is bull****, and what you said is bull****. I suggested we put it to vote in the next round of voting and so far you have yet to agree with that. You want to put the vote somewhere else. If we put it together with the regular voting everyone will vote and we'll get a good idea as to what is going on. That's all I'm asking to occur, and for whatever reason you've taken this as a personal crusade to make sure this doesn't happen. I don't see the harm in just putting it up to a vote and letting that be the end of it. The last time you tried that you did it prematurely, you put the wrong questions down, and then didn't even actually officially do it.

I don't know why you are so against setting a penalty to this rule, it makes absolutely no sense to me, and yet you continue to rail against it. We had participation in this thread, and I think most of the players would agree there should be a penalty. But for some reason you don't want that to happen, and you don't let it happen. Its not that difficult to do. Hell, I can do it myself actually, but it would be better if you just said "Hey and while you vote, we're voting on what penalty we should add to the 33% double-move rule." Is that so difficult for you to do?

[The Capo]

Alright, its probably a bad idea that we keep arguing, so I'm sorry about all the personal stuff I said. If you consider it that, I still believe. So you can delete those posts if you want. But what I AM going to do is this; on the next round of votes I am going to put up my proposal too. And here it is;

Everyone should be clear on the 33% rule. And I think it should be defined as a rounded number, so let's round down. Let's call it six hours. If you are at war and move within six hours of the NEXT TURN'S timer you have broken the rule. That we all agree on.

If you break this rule the first time you should just lose 25% of your total votes up to that point.

If you break it the second time you again lose 25% of your total votes (this does not include lost votes) and five tech vouchers.

This is just for any violation of the rule so far.

If you do it in an overt and gross fashion (like you attack multiple units, pillage multiple squares, etc.) you will be punished more harshly; 25% of your total votes and you lose ten vouchers. This penalty will be determined by THREE people. One of your allies, one of your enemy's allies and a third, TRULY non-aligned player. This way you have one side (ostensibly) making arguments FOR you and then one side making arguments AGAINST you while one would serve as the neutral who would, in theory, break the tie. Although all three players can vote however they'd like and their decision should remain anonymous.

If you do it three times I think you should be in consideration to be booted, because clearly you don't respect the other players.

There should be exemptions; if you HAD to move you should be exempt (and we've gone over this before so everyone should know what I mean), if you did it on accident and it is clear through your actions that you did it on accident (you only get to use this once), and then any other possible exemption I haven't come up with. Who will decide this? The same three people who would decide if it was a gross and overt violation.

Basically say the Aztecs attacked the Zulus at the 4:15 hour point, (within the six hour limit). If the Zulus think they were attacked too harshly and want to "file" for the extra punishment they should say so in the organization thread and then three people are chosen. We'll let the Zulus pick one, the Aztecs pick another, and then the third neutral party is chosen by the rest of the group (but must actually be neutral). If the Aztecs say "I had to move/It was an accident" the same thing occurs, a group of three is picked in the same way to determine if this happened. Unless of course the Zulu player decides that they believe the Aztecs player.

This way those that think that we shouldnt' punish accidentally rule-breakers get a safety net, the penalties are less harsh than what I suggested before AND there is still oversight on certain situations. I think this is a fair compramise.